法則 Ep 10

Here's the last Law essay in my exam :D

*          *          *

Question:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of strict adherence to legal precedent? How strictly are judges bound to precedent in the UK?

Answer:

Precedent is the source of law in which is created in courts for future judges to follow. Generally, all courts are bound by courts above it in the hierarchy as well as their own decisions.

Strict adherence to legal precedent has given a fair share of advantages and disadvantages to society. Among the advantages are certainty. Since precedents are naturally binding, it allows a certain degree of certainty. It allows lawyers to advise their clients based on what they have experienced so far. It also lets them carefully plan their next move.

Another advantage is that precedent provides flexibility. Precedents are allowed flexibility due to certain methods of departing such as distinguishing, overruling and reversing. This allows a limit to its rigidity.

Thirdly, having binding precedents is very useful in the sense that it saves a lot of time. Since the procedure is pretty much fixed, lawyers and clients are unlikely to go through the lengthy process of litigation.

The disadvantages to precedent, however, is that there is quite an amount of rigidity in the system. Since all decisions are precedent and binding, it is compulsory for all courts in the hierarchy to adhere to it. In some cases, the decisions might be wrong or bad, but not much can be done.

Strict adherence to legal precedent has also created a slowness in growth. This is because it is very rare for a case to appeal as far the Supreme Court if the claimant or defendant is unsatisfied in with the decision. Due to this, the growth and development of judicial precedent may be slow.

Precedent may also be disadvantageous because of illogical distinctions. For example, in the case of using the method of distinguishing. In desperation of applying this method, lawyers may find even the slightest of differences, which may appear illogical.

However, while it is true that legal precedence can be strict, there are some methods that can be used to depart from these decisions. Such methods are the distinguishing, overruling and reversing method.

The distinguishing method was used in the Balfour v Balfour case and the Merritt v Merritt case. In the latter case, the wife claimed that her husband had breached a contract. However, the claim was unsuccessful because there was no intention to create legal relations. On the other hand, the Merritt case, which also involved a wife making a claim against her husband, succeeded because the contract was signed after they had separated and there was a proof of it in writing.

An example using the overruling method is the Pepper v Hart case. Here, the Supreme Court overruled that the Hansard could not be used in statutory interpretation as in its earlier case, using the Practice Statement.

The reversing method is used when a higher court reverses the decision made by a lower court in the same case. However, this only applies if the case is appealed to the higher court and if the higher court believes the lower court has made a mistake.

As a result, legal precedent is both strict as well as flexible. It depends on how well it is used to one's advantage or disadvantage.

Marks: 19/25

~#~

Hmm... No comment for this, alright?

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 9

This is another Law post from my exam :D

*          *          *

Question:
How far is it true that equity has fulfilled its potential?

Answer:

Equity, which is generally known as 'fairness', plays an important role in today's community. It is an evolution from history's common law and continues to grow as time does.

Equity came about when the general public realised that there were certain flaws in the structure of common law. For example, the fact that the only remedy that common law could offer was damages. Damages are a form of compensation to the plaintiff in the form of money. Equity came to existence because of this as it offered more remedies such as injunctions, specific performance, rescission and rectification.

Injunctions are orders received in which the receiver either has to do something or is not permitted from doing something. The injunctions are, therefore, mandatory and prohibitory injunctions respectively. An example of prohibitory injunctions is in the case Warner Brothers v Nelson. In the case, Bette Davis  was prohibited from appearing in another film from another firm because that would breach her contract with Warner Brothers.

Specific performance is when a party is ordered to do something specific. However, personal actions are not granted such as singing at a concert. Also, specific performance does not apply if one of the parties is a minor.

Rescission is the act of returning both parties as far away as possible to their pre-contractual positions. Therefore, in the event that someone has bought something, the purchases are returned for the purchasing price.

The remedy of rectification is the act of rectifying a mistake in a contract so as to reveal its intentions.

Apart from equity remedies, equities also come with equitable maxims. Some examples are that equity looks at the intention and not the form, those who come with equity must come with clean hands and delay defeats equity.

The maxim that equity looks at the intention and not the form can be seen in the Berry v Berry case. Usually, a deed is needed to overrules another deed, however in the Berry case, a simple contract sufficed because the intentions were clear.

The case that incorporates the maxim that those who come with equity must come with clean hands is the D & C Builders Ltd v Rees case. In this situation, Mr and Mrs Rees paid the builders a portion in advance. When asked for the full pay afterwards, they declared that the builders had not done the job properly and paid them lesser. The builders, experiencing financial difficulties, accepted in desperation. However, they later sued the Rees for the remaining.

Under the rule of estoppel, the builders were actually not allowed to sue the Rees for the remaining, however Lord Denning said that the Rees had not come with 'clean hands'. Therefore, the claim succeeded.

In many ways, the system of equity has plenty of hidden potential. However, it is just as undeniable that equity has maximised its potential where discovered.

Marks: 16/25

~#~

You'll do better not knowing where the other 9 marks went, because I don't either -.- It was pretty much similar to other essays that my friends wrote but the difference between ours was that theirs got 19/25 and above.

Ugh, whatever.

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 8

Another law post, comin' up!! :D

*          *          *

Question:
Evaluate the view that any advantages of the jury system are far outweighed by its disadvantages.

Answers:

The jury system has long since been a system used in courts, typically when judging criminal offences. A jury usually consists of 12 people, selected at random. However, much care is taken so as to refrain from choosing anybody who is not qualified to be a juror.

This system has also gained much confidence from the people in a sense that is it has sort of become a reliable method of settling cases. It is seen as such because a large majority of people disapprove to the disagreement of right of rial by jury for 'minor' thefts.

However, it is generally stated that the advantages of the jury system are far outweighed by its disadvantages. To a certain extent, it is unfortunately true.

For example, an advantage of the jury system is the secrecy of the jury room. Since nobody is allowed to enter the room, the jurors are free from pressure and strain of choosing the right verdict. Jurors also get to discuss the evidence they have heard in private.

Unfortunately, it is also for this very reason that it is a disadvantage. Since nobody is allowed in the room other than the jurors, it is debatable whether or not the jurors understand the case evidence and facts.

A second advantage is that since the selection is pretty much random, the jurors' personal biases and prejudices are likely to cancel each others' out. Therefore, there is a possibility of a fair trial.

However, this is also a disadvantage because it is possible for a jury to consist of more biased and prejudiced people. In such an event, there is a possibility of a very unfair trial.

Other disadvantages include media influence, which may have an effect on the decision of the jury. There may also be the issue of jury tampering, in which friends or family members of the defendant or claimant speak to the jurors and influence them. Apart from that, long trials may tire and put a strain on the jury emotionally, causing them to be unable to judge properly.

There is also the possibility of a restless jury, in which the jurors do not really care for the facts and would rather have the case end fast. They then begin to take no notice of the key evidence and instead act on hunches and assumptions.

In conclusion, Lord Devlin once said that the jury is the 'lamp that shows that freedom exists'. However, while it is definitely true that the jury system has advantages, it is more so to say that its advantages are far outweighed by its disadvantages.

Marks: 20/25

~#~

I thought I could do better than a 20. But screw it. I have to remind myself that it's Carl who's marking my paper so... -.-

Another Law post on its way!!

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 7

Whoo~ This is my Law exam essays :D

*          *          *

Question:
To what extent, if at all, should law be used to enforce morality?

Answer:

It is universally acknowledged that laws are rules and regulations which govern us. They are passed by those who govern us and enforced as such they believe appropriate or suitable. If violated, serious consequences will have to be beared by the violator.

On the other hand, morality is based solely on what the particular individual deems as right and wrong. They are constitutions of the individual's morals and principles. They also differ from person to person. Most importantly, if moral principles are violated, it is unlikely the individual will be arrested.

There are, however, overlaps which occur some of the time. While a few may coincide with each other, others may bring the opposite effect. For example, it is a law that public urination is not allowed. It is also immoral for such an act to be done. In this case, the law and morality coincide with each other. In the event that the law and morality should conflict, however, it would be an example of morality obstructing the average adult from indulging in pornography, whereas there is no written law that prohibits it.

In light of the above statement, it is a constant debate with regards to whether law should be used to enforce morality. In actual fact, there are a few advantages and disadvantages in doing so.

An advantage to incorporating morality into law is that the society would less likely see any sort of misbehaviour or disgraceful actions committed in public. For example, if prostitution were banned, nobody would have to sell their bodies for money.

Another advantage would be that law would be much easier to enforce. For example, any bad actions would be against the law and be put right immediately. Nobody would have dilemmas on whether or not the law says it's wrong because it is against one's morals.

On the other hand, if morality were to be incorporated into law, the law would be very rigid. For one, even the slightest action which goes against one's morality would be thereby declared against the law. If such were to be the case, there would hardly be anyone on the streets.

Secondly, as mentioned above, morality differs from person to person. Therefore, who is to decide whose morals to incorporate into our laws? What is wrong to an individual need not necessarily be wrong to another individual. Ergo, confusion will arise and the stability of the law would be jeopardised.

In a nutshell, there is no doubt that law should be used to enforce morality. However, it should only be done to a certain degree so as to provide some freedom but not so much as to cause any disturbance or imbalance to the society.

Marks: 20/25

~#~

I'll let you in on a secret eh? I thought I did more than very badly for this essay. Yet, I still got 20/25. It really doesn't say much for my Law lecturer.

Another one comin' up :)

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 6

Here's another Law post :D It was written on the 21st of February but he returned this also just recently, so that's why it's up so late -.-

*          *          *

Question:
Examine the claim that the rules of precedent provide sufficient flexibility for judges at all levels of the hierarchy.

Answer:

The doctrine of judicial precedence has been practiced in England for many centuries and it is a pillar of the English legal system. This doctrine operates when judges dealing with a current case with similar facts of a previous case shall apply the same law applied in the previous case. Different levels of court within the hierarchy apply different rules of departing from their own precedence.

For civil cases, the courts involved are the European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Divisional Courts, the High Court, the Crown Court, the County Court and the Magistrates’ Court. These courts are further divided into two categories; appellate courts and courts of first instance.

Appellate courts involve the European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Courts. The Courts of first instance include the High Court, the Crown Court, the County Court, and the Magistrates’ Court. Each court is bound by all previous precedents as well as higher courts except in the case of inferior courts like the Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates’ Court.

Despite the fact that courts are bound by previous precedents and higher courts, there are claims stating that the rules of precedent provide sufficient flexibility for judges at all levels of the hierarchy. The only courts which do not have this flexibility are the inferior courts.

One method of departing is distinguishing. This allows a judge to ignore a past decision which he would otherwise have to follow. For this to be applied, a judge has to draw a distinction between the previous precedent and the present case. One example would be the Balfour v Balfour (1919) and the Merritt v Merritt (1971). Both cases involved a wife claiming her husband had committed a breach in contract. In the Balfour case, the claim did not succeed because no legal relations were intended – it was a domestic arrangement between a man and his spouse so there was no legally binding contract. This made it significantly different from the Merritt case because the agreement was made after the husband and wife had separated. Also, there was proof of the agreement in writing. Therefore, the claim succeeded.

There is also the case overruling, where a court in a later case states that the legal rule decided in the previous case is wrong. It may occur when a higher court overrules a decision made a by a lower court. For example, when the European Court of Justice overrules a decision made by the Supreme Court. It can also occur when a court overrules a past decision it has made or when the Supreme Court used its power under the Practice Statement to overrule its past decision.

The Practice Statement states that ‘their Lordships recognize that the rigid adherence may lead to injustice in a particular case and unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose, therefore, to modify their present practice and while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.’ Although there is some reluctance on the Supreme Courts’ part, the Practice Statement undeniably provides some form of flexibility to the court. Some cases where the Practice Statement was used are the Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (1976), Anns v Merton London Borough (1977), and Pepper v Hart (1993).

Lastly, there is the reversing method, which allows courts higher up in the hierarchy to overturn the decisions of lower courts on appeal in the same case. For example, if the Court of Appeal disagrees with the legal ruling of the high Court, they may reverse the decision. This is most likely to happen if the higher court comes to a different view of the law than the one made by the lower court.

In light of the above arguments, there is truth in the claim that the rules of precedent provide sufficient flexibility for judges at all levels of the hierarchy.

Marks: 19/25

~#~

As usual, I don't know where the other 6 marks went to, but I'm way too pissed to be asking my lecturer why.

That's about it, then. 

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 5

Okay, this was actually written on the 31st of JANUARY 2013, but since my lecturer only graded and returned our papers today, here's a little Law post :D

*          *          *

Question:
Consider how the doctrine of binding precedent operates in the English courts, having particular regard to its advantages and disadvantages.

Answer:
Ratio decidendi, which means ‘the reasoning of the decision’, is the part of the decision that is persuasive, or otherwise binding. Judges use these principles to decide the outcome of a case and create a precedent for them to follow in future cases. On the other hand, an obiter dictum includes the rest of the judgment at the end of the case and is not necessary for them to follow in future. However, since the judgment is usually given in continuous form, it is important to divide the obiter dicta from the ratio decidendi.

From the ratio decidendi, a binding precedent may be formed. This precedent must be followed even if future judges do not agree with the legal principles. It is also created when there are similarities between a case and its previous one. The position of the court of record in the hierarchy should be noted, as this will determine whether the ratio is binding or persuasive.

Every court is bound to follow decisions made by a court above it in the hierarchy. These courts are divided into Appellate courts and First Instance courts. Appellate courts include the European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court. Courts of the First Instance include the High Courts and the Inferior courts involving the Crown, Country and Magistrate courts.

The European Court of Justice, in the hierarchy, holds the highest power among courts affecting the English Legal System. It is also prepared to overrule its past decisions where they see fit. Therefore, it is safe to say that the European Court of Justice is more flexible than other courts. However, in the case that there are laws unaffected by European Union laws, the Supreme Court is the supreme court.

The Supreme Court is the most senior national court. Like the European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court is not bound by its past decisions, but in general, they keep to them. However, their decisions bind other courts.

The Court of Appeal, or in this case, the Civil Court, is bound by the European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court. Apart from that, they must follow their own previous decisions too.

There are three types of Divisional Courts, namely the Queen’s Bench, Chancery and Family. These courts are all bound by decisions made by European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. They also follow their previous decisions but are flexible when the point involves the liberty of the subject.

Courts of First Instance include the High Court and Inferior courts. The High Court, like other courts, is bound by decisions of all the courts above it in the hierarchy. They also bind lower courts. Although the High Court judges do not have to follow each other’s decisions, they will usually do so.

Inferior Courts, which are the Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates’ Court, are bound to follow decisions carried out by all the higher courts and it is unlikely that a decision by an inferior court can create precedent.

There are a few methods for a judge to avoid following a previous decision. For the method of distinguishing to work, the judge will have to find material facts of the case which have distinctive differences between the present case and the previous precedent. When this is accomplished, the judge is not bound by the previous case.

For instance, the two cases that can attest this process are Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Merritt v Merritt (1971). These cases involved a wife making a claim against her husband for breaching a contract. In the Balfour case, it was decided that the claim was invalid because no legal relations were intended. There was no legally binding contract because it was merely an arrangement made domestically between a husband and wife.

However, the Merritt v Merritt (1971) case was successful because although both parties involved husbands and wives, the court held that the facts between the two cases were sufficiently different in the sense that the agreement was made after they had separated. Moreover, the agreement was made legitimate in writing. This distinguished the Merritt case from the Balfour case and therefore the agreement in Merritt was not just a domestic arrangement but meant as a legally enforceable contract.

There are a few advantages to the way it is carried out. Of the advantages, one of them includes certainty. Since the courts have to follow past decisions, it allows lawyers to advise clients with more positive assurance because they know what the law is and how it works in particular situations.

Furthermore, precedents provide consistency and fairness in the law since it is seen as just that similar cases should be decided in a similar way. It also offers precision as the principles of law are set in actual cases. This allows gradual build-up through the different variations of facts in the cases that come before the courts.

Another advantage is that precedents save time. This is because precedents can be considered as a useful timesaving device. When the principle is established, cases with similar facts will be unlikely to go through the process of litigation.

In terms of flexibility, precedents give room for law to change as the Supreme Court may use the Practice Statement to overrule cases. This ability to distinguish cases gives courts a certain portion of freedom to avoid past decisions and develop the law.

As with every advantage, there are disadvantages as well. These include rigidity. Since lower courts have no choice but to follow decisions of higher courts, bad decisions made in the past may be preserved.

Apart from that, there is the issue of complexity. The judgments are, by themselves, often very long and have no clear distinction between comments and the reasons for the decision. This will make it challenging in some cases to separate the ratio decidendi from the decision.

There would also be cases of illogical distinctions because the use of distinguishing, to avoid previous decisions, may lead to ‘hair-splitting’. The differences between these cases, therefore, may appear small and illogical.

Lastly, there is the slowness of growth. Some judges are acquainted with the fact that some laws need amendments. However, they cannot do anything about it unless it is brought before the courts. Therefore, there may be quite a while for a suitable case to be appealed as far as the Supreme Court.

Marks: 18/25

~#~

Honestly, I don't know where the hell the rest of the marks went because I wrote one heck of a long essay. 

Oh well -.-

That's about it, then. CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 4

Alright, here's another Law post. I know I haven't been updating daily, but at least this will help make up for it :)

This essay was my 1st continuous assessment, by the way :D

*          *          *

Question:
Evaluate the doctrine of sovereignty in the context of UK membership of the European Union.

Answer:
Under the doctrine of sovereignty, Parliament in the United Kingdom has the power to make laws or overrule customs, delegated legislations, judicial precedent and Acts of Parliament.

The system of Parliamentary sovereignty – also known as Parliamentary supremacy – was based on democratic law-making. Members of Parliament were elected by voters in the constituency. Although this system was supposed to be democratic, some democracy was lost because the Members of Parliament were elected only by a small number of voters. Also, civil servants were involved, giving the system more simplicity. The election is carried out once every five years.

The doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty can be most easily explained using Professor Dicey's statement. His statement was that "Parliament can make and unmake law". Professor Dicey also provided three main things that Parliament could do. The first was that Parliament could make law whenever it wanted to. Secondly, the decisions made by an Act of Parliament cannot bind future Parliament and in turn, is not bound by previous decisions made by a previous Parliament. Thirdly, an Act of Parliament cannot be overridden or overruled by lower courts.

In general, Professor Dicey's statement proves to be true. However, since the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Union, the doctrine of sovereignty, to some extent, because slightly challenged. While it is undeniable that Parliament has a hold on its lower courts, it is almost as undeniable to say that Parliament lost some of its power when it entered the European Union by passing the European Communities Act 1972.

One such example is in the case of Macarthys Ltd v Smith. In this case, it was shown that Wendy Smith claimed that her male predecessor was given a higher salary. However, since the employer had not hired them at the same time, it could be said that no contract was breached. Despite that, her claim was confirmed by the European Court of Justice on grounds that man and women should be treated as equals and therefore be given the same salary.

Another similar case involved a lady, Connaughton, making a claim stating that after she left her job, the position was offered at a higher pay. To make things worse, the successful candidate, a man, to the post then procured it at a much higher salary than advertised. Thus, the European Court of Justice acknowledged this in a way that was similar to Wendy Smith's case. The only difference was that while Wendy Smith's case had a reference to her predecessor, Connaughton's case had a reference to her immediate successor.

In light of the above statement, the entry of United Kingdom into the European Union did rob the United Kingdom of its absolute supremacy. Since the European Communities Act 1972 was implemented, it became certain that the Community had the higher power pertaining to certain subjects or situations where its Member States were concerned.

While it is possible, in theory, for the United Kingdom to withdraw its membership from the European Union, in practical it could be seen as unwise. This is because in doing so, the United Kingdom would suffer from very heavy serious consequences. In situations such as this, it might just be a better option for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union, at least until it has built a stronger foundation to rely on.

To conclude this evaluation, it is arguable to say that the doctrine of sovereignty related to the Parliament is absolute. However, it is generally perceived as supreme.

Marks: 20/25

~#~

I got higher marks than I did for QT for this, although I totally bullshitted this paper -.-

Alrighty then :) I'll blog more educational posts later :)

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 3

Question 2 of my Law QT :D

*          *          *

Question:
Explain what is common law and its relationship to equity.

Answer:
Before common laws came about, the people relied on customs, which were acts that were dubbed as being the norm. Judges would then place judgment on offenders based on those customs.

However, after a period of time, the King decided to choose and specify which customs would prevail. Thus, this collection of customs became known as common laws.

Common laws are very closely related to equities. In fact, equities came into existence because of the flaws presented in common laws. Equities became the second option – and the more favoured one – where law was concerned. One of the reasons is because the only remedy common law could impose was ‘damages’. ‘Damages’ was a way of compensation by offering the claimant a certain amount of money.

Although this may have sounded pleasing to the plaintiff’s ears, it might not have been the best method to solve the matter between the two parties. This is because the plaintiff might want what was taken rather than a sum of money to substitute it.

This was where equities made the difference. Since there were equitable maxims and equity remedies, everything fell apart for common laws. Furthermore, the winning side would be able to claim both ‘damages’ and a remedy if the judge thought that ‘damages’ was not enough to compensate for their loss.

In the event that common law and equities should come into conflict, however, it was decided that equities would be the one to be followed. As long as common laws and equities existed among each other, there would naturally be conflicts because common law would support one side of the court and the equity would support the other.

In light of what has been mentioned above, although common laws and equities are technically polar opposites, there they are, indeed, closely related.

Marks: 19/25

~#~

Alrighty. That's my Law QT for you :P

My overall score for the whole paper was 76%, which I think was pretty good considering I thought I did quite bad. Plus, it's an A* :D

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法則 Ep 2

Law post, as promised. This is my QT Question 1 :D

*          *          *

Question:
Consider how the doctrine of binding precedence operates in the English courts, having particular regard to its advantages and disadvantages.

Answer:
The English legal system operates on the basis of stare decisis. Loosely, it is translated to “stand by what has been decided”. It is also divided into the ratio decidendi and the obiter dicta.

Ratio decidendi, also known in English as “reason for deciding” is the part of a judgment stated by the judge. Simply put, it is the principles of law in which the people have used in order to reach the particular decision. The ratio decidendi also forms the precedent.

In contrast to the ratio decidendi, the obiter dicta includes the rest of the judgment and means “other things said”. It does not create precedent and future judges do not need to follow it.

A binding precedent is a decision made by courts which force judges to follow them when there are sufficient similarities between an earlier case and a later case. This means that whether or not a judge agrees or disagrees with the legal principles of law used, the decision must be followed.

Courts in the United Kingdom are lined according to the court hierarchy. The court at the highest point is the European Court of Justice. The following are the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, High Court, Crown Court, County Court and the Magistrates’ Court, in order. These groups are grouped into Appellate courts and courts of first instance.

Appellate courts include the European Court of Justice, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. These courts hear appeals made by lower courts. The courts of first instance include the remaining courts. Known also as inferior courts, however, the County Court and Magistrates’ Court do not create precedent.

Binding precedents mostly affect lower courts. This is because all courts are bound by decisions made previously by themselves as well as senior courts. For example, the Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions as well as the decisions by the European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court.

In modern society, binding precedents may prove to be of very good use. This is because it has a few advantages. Firstly, precedence helps in terms of law certainty. It a later case bears similarities to a previous case which has been made precedent, the outcome would be clear. Lawyers would also be able to advise their clients on what to expect and what not to expect from the case.

Secondly, binding precedence helps to shorten the time frame of the case. Since the case has similarly been brought forth before, formalities may be executed in a professional manner. This will deter the process of a long-winded litigation.

Furthermore, binding precedence allows for the law to be, to some extent, absolute. The people will have no need to fret because the law will not change. Therefore, the citizens may rely on the law to bring justice.

However, although binding precedence brings a few advantages, it also brings certain disadvantages. For one, since it provides some level of certainty, people may miss some key facts that may lead to some discrepancies, because of its rigidity.

Moreover, binding precedence could lead to slowness in growth in terms of the law. Since precedence functions to have all courts follow decisions made previously by themselves and higher courts, it leaves little space for improvement. This means that in future, even if changes were necessary, the system would not acknowledge it.

Lastly, binding precedence has certain complexities that could confuse one or both parties. Since the method of distinguishing may be used to avoid following decisions made by higher courts, lawyers might try to find even the slightest of distinctions that may separate that case with the case it bears similarities to. To some people, this may seem illogical.

All in all, it is safe to say that binding precedence both helps provide justice in our society. There may be a few setbacks to the system, but it is balanced, in a sense.

Marks: 19/25

~#~

Question 2 coming up :D

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!

法律 Ep 1

Here's a little change of scenery, eh? :)

*          *          *

Question:
Describe the main types of European Law.

Answer:
In European law, there are four main types; treaties, directives, regulations and decisions.

A treaty is a primary source of law, with the Treaty of Rome being the most prominent. Treaties act as binding agreements between all the member states and individuals as far as they apply to them.

Following the European Communities Act 1972, s 2(1), when treaties are signed by the heads of government, the law automatically becomes a part of the English law. Treaties govern mainly the organisation of the community and relationships between the Member State, but some of them affect individuals directly. For example, Art 141 establishes the principle of equal pay between men and women. An individual citizen may, under certain circumstances, rely on the provisions of the treaties when taking legal action against a government or other individual.

Directives apply only when implemented by the member state. In simpler words, if the European Union produces a directive, a member state must make a domestic rule, which facilitates the law envisaged in the directive.

Also, if the directive specifies a right, the individual must wait for the member state to pass a law implementing a directive. If the above is not fulfilled, the individual will only be able to sue the government itself for failing to comply with the directive. This is also known as the indirect effect.

Regulations come into force at the member state level states to pass any laws, and the member states are automatically expected to ignore any local laws which conflict with the regulation.

If a regulation provides individuals with certain rights, an individual has a legal claim to that right, and can bring an action against any other party if this right is infringed upon. Under these circumstances, the individual is advised to seek legal advice from a solicitor. The regulation, therefore, is said to have direct effect because the citizen in a member state can rely on the regulation directly.

Lastly, the court, under the power of Article 288, makes decisions. It operates to both clarify the existing laws and ensure their enforcement by member states. These decisions consider the statutes (directives and regulations) and apply them to specific cases.

They are administrative in nature and Article 288 allows for recommendations and opinions to be issued although they have no binding force.

Marks: 7/12.

~#~

Woo~ Law essay. Please note that this is not a good essay. I'm working on it :)

CIAO!!

P/S: Please click on my Nuffnang ads :) Thanks!!